The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM
22,2
160
Received 15 July 2008
Revised 28 September 2008
28 April 2008
24 May 2009
Accepted 25 May 2009
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2010
pp. 160-173
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/09596111011018160
Customer perceptions of service
quality in luxury hotels in New
Delhi, India: an exploratory study
Asad Mohsin and Tim Lockyer
Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of the study is to assess the service quality perception of customers of luxury
hotels, New Delhi in India and to help the hotel management identify areas that need attention to meet
and exceed customer expectations.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses a survey and interview technique to accumulate
information for analysis using SPSS version 12 and was conducted at different four- and five-star
hotels in New Delhi involving hotel guests agreeing to participate. A usable sample of 271 participants
resulted with a large majority being male.
Findings – The importance-performance analysis shows that, for responses relating to front office,
room service and in-house café/restaurant, the importance score is statistically significant to and
higher than the performance rating. Overall, the results indicate significant difference between
expectations of the guests and actual experiences, thus highlighting managerial implications.
Research limitations/implications – The current study cannot claim to be wholly conclusive as it
is limited to a small sample size from only one metropolitan city of India and there could be
subjectivity in responses. From a practitioner’s perspective the study provides an opportunity to
recognise, in ranking order, features that are considered important by the guests staying in luxury
hotels of New Delhi in India and to identify the areas of disparity in service and product quality.
Originality/value – It is observed that this is a significant study of service quality in luxury hotels
in India; in that sense the study contributes to the literature and provides an opportunity for a
comparative study of service quality with other such studies undertaken in different parts of the globe.
Keywords Customer services quality, Customer satisfaction, Hotels, India
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
India is emerging as a fast growing free market economy with services as the main
source of economic growth accounting for more than half of India’s output with less
than one-third of its labour force (IBEF, 2008a). India with over a billion people is
experiencing significant growth in its tourism and hospitality sector. According to the
India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF, 2008b) India has earned international
recognition with World Travel and Trade Council in its global report for 2008 ranking
India as No “1” in long-term travel growth. India has also won the World’s leading
Destination Marketing Award for the Incredible India campaign (IBEF, 2008a, b). The
growth in foreign tourists” arrivals increased by 11.5 per cent in 2008 from January to
May 2008 period resulting in 2.31 million compared with 2.07 million in 2007. Domestic
tourism also has experienced a phenomenal growth from 366.23 million in 2004 to 462
million in 2006 (IBEF, 2008b). This increase in travel has impacted occupancy ratios
and average room rates in India. Several international hotel chains Hilton, Accor, Service quality in
Marriott, and InterContinental Hotel Group etc. see this as an investment opportunity luxury hotels
and have announced major investment plans in India (IBEF, 2008b).
The growth in international tourism generally and domestic tourism specifically
and the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in 2011 have contributed in generating
interest in India. This interest has led to studying perceptions of people who use
tourism facilities, particularly luxury hotels for the purpose of the current study. The 161
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, groups five-star deluxe, five-star and
four-star hotels as “luxury hotels”; hence based on participation and purpose of this
study the term “luxury hotels” is used for five- and four-star hotels (ACNielson
ORG_MARG, 2008).
To develop a background and theoretical framework for the current study, a
literature review relating to service quality in hotels was undertaken. The review
shows that service quality in hotels continues to be an area of wider global research. Its
strong significance is related to customer satisfaction and repeat business, which are
determinants of profitability of business according to several studies. Service quality,
customer perceptions of quality, service failures, service competitiveness etc have long
been studied. However, for the current study reference is made to the literature of about
the last 15 years.
O’Neil et al. (1994) state in their study that international demand for products and
services no longer happens automatically but has to be created. In proposing that
businesses typically lose 50 per cent of their customers every five years, Mack et al.
(2000) stress the need that businesses should talk to their customers, understand their
expectations and make efforts to retain them and sustain profits. Links between service
quality and business profits have long been apparent as indicated by Baker and
Crompton (2000), Zeithaml and Bitner (2000), Mohsin (2003), Bates et al. (2003), Mohsin
and Ryan (2005). It is also suggested that irrespective of efforts positioned into
producing quality service, it is the perceptions of customers that really matter (Getty
and Getty, 2003). Hence, there seems to be a need to study hotels’ customer perceptions.
The current study makes such an effort and surveys luxury hotel customers in New
Delhi, India.
The survival of hotels in the current competitive environment where most hotels
have quite similar luxurious physical facilities much depends on delivery of service
quality aiming to result in customer delight. Pallet et al. (2003) suggests that quality
has to be visioned, initiated, planned, delivered, monitored and sustained. They
propose that quality problems and key staff issues in hotels often can be solved with a
common “People and Quality” strategy which involves placing customer needs in the
heart of the whole process; seeking suggestions form staff; developing corporate
quality and people philosophy; training and empowering staff; benchmarking and
reviewing (Pallet et al., 2003, p 349).
Examining service quality across small, medium and large hotels in Scotland,
Briggs et al. (2007) note major inconsistencies in service quality performance across the
sector. The study further suggests that most customers are not in fact overly
demanding and are satisfied with a personal service that represents value for money
and provides accurate information. The main difference between excellent and poor
service for them relates to the absence of the personal touch and how staff deal with
their complaints (Briggs et al., 2007). Taking into account the Irish hotel industry,
IJCHM Keating and Harrington (2003) suggest in their study that many quality programmes
22,2 fail from lack of commitment on the part of senior and middle management, and
front-line employees. The authors further suggest that the management of quality in
contemporary hospitality organisations is lacking in involvement, communication and
teamwork dimensions. Similarly investigating the service quality in China’s hotel
industry, Tsang and Qu (2000) find that tourists’ perceptions of service quality
162 provided in the hotel industry in China were consistently lower than their expectations
and those managers overestimated the service delivery, compared to the tourists’
perceptions of service quality. Along these lines it is noted that several studies of
service quality in hotels continue to be undertaken in different parts of the globe.
Thus, the literature and research places significant emphasis on service quality,
customer satisfaction and its linkage with business profits. Considering this – what is
the current situation in the hotels in India? Are hotel guests satisfied with the service
they receive? Is there a “disparity” or significant difference between their expectations
and their actual experience from services offered by the hotel? Is a country like India
with a large trained workforce able meet hotel guests’ expectations? Is the traditional
Indian hospitality embedded in the service attitude of hotel employees? Does the
traditional Indian hospitality culture, which states – Athithi Devo Bhavha (Guest is
God), possess any role in contemporary hospitality? Traditional cultural values in
services have been observed to have an influence in other Asian cultures such as the
Taiwanese. Tsai et al. (2002) in a Taiwanese setting highlight that Chinese people are
very sensitive to kuan-hsi (personal relationship) in social interactions. According to
the authors in business and customer relationships kuan-hsi is regarded as a set of
connections that secure business and personal interests (Tsai et al., 2002). How is the
traditional Indian culture influencing the service to guests in luxury hotels currently?
Such questions became the impetus for the current study.
New Delhi was chosen due to support provided in data collection by a local
Banarsidas Chandiwala Institute of Hotel Management (Guru Govind Singh
University). New Delhi is the capital and a metropolitan city of India which has 38
luxury hotels with 7794 rooms. The capital city has new projects of eight five-star
hotels with room capacity of 2,000 by 2009, and three four-star hotels with room
capacity of 342 (ACNielson ORG_MARG, 2008, pp. 33-4 and 44 respectively). The large
number of luxury hotels eased selection when approaching and obtaining management
consent to participate in the study, although it was quite a challenging task in India.
Only eight hotels agreed to participate and they were all in the five-star category.

Methodology
According to the India’s Market Pulse Report from Ministry of Tourism (2004)
Government of India, the metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad
and Kolkata, along with Goa account for 62 per cent of rooms in the five- and four-star
categories. Accumulating data from all hotels in different metropolitan cities was
beyond the scope of the current exploratory study hence study was limited to New
Delhi.
The study offers an opportunity to gauge a largely under researched area of service
quality, customer perceptions and their actual experience of luxury hotels guests in
India. The study also offers a possibility to compare and contrast with other similar
studies undertaken in different parts of the globe.
 The main objective of this study is to assess: Service quality in
.
General expectations and factors of importance for guests who stay in various luxury hotels
luxury hotels in New Delhi, India.
.
Guest actual experience and evaluation from the stay – how did the hotel
perform against a perception of importance of relevant factors?
.
Disparity between the specific and overall components of importance and actual 163
stay experience.

Questionnaire construction and sample

Peterson and Wilson (1992) state that customer satisfaction appears most typically to
be measured through surveys. Surveys provide formal feedback to a firm and send a
positive signal to customers that the firm is interested in them. This framework
approach is undertaken in the current study. Management of different luxury hotels in
New Delhi, India, were approached to explain the purpose of this study and obtain their
consent to participate. The retention of anonymity in the research report aided the
acquisition of approval to administer the survey to guests staying in the participating
hotels. The study was undertaken at different five star hotels consenting to participate.
The methodology involved surveying consenting hotel guests in the hotel lobby or
other convenient location within the hotel. During the survey any comments made
were noted and further explanation was offered where necessary while participating
guests filled the survey questionnaire. Some guests chose to take the survey and return
it to hotel reception later. Guest had the option to withdraw from their participation at
any stage of the survey.
Front office, room service and restaurant were chosen for the study as being most
representative of guest contact and service delivery process representing maximum
moments of truth opportunities where the service provider comes in direct contact with
the guest.
A questionnaire was structured for this study with input from local hotel managers
and individual items were selected and customised based on studies such as Lockyer
(2000), Mohsin (2003) and Mohsin and Ryan (2005). The questionnaire comprised three
sections. Section one gathered data on importance attributed to different features of
front office, room service and in-house café/restaurant by guests. Section two sought
an evaluation of how the establishment performed in the opinion of guests, as per the
listed features of front office, room service and in-house café/restaurant. Section three
accumulated demographic details in terms of gender, age, type of trip (business or
holiday) and country of residence. The study uses a Likert scale of 1 to 7, where 7
represents highest importance or agreement with the statement and 1 represents
lowest importance or unacceptable level of service offered; 0 represented no opinion,
and was excluded from the analysis. A useable sample of 271 participants resulted
over a period of almost four months.

The results
The convenience sample comprised of Indian respondents and consists of 264 males
with the largest number (35.4 per cent) being in the age group 31-40 years old followed
by those aged 41-50 years (31.5 per cent). The items, as previously noted, were derived
IJCHM from a sequence associated with guests checking in and using hotel facilities prior to
22,2 departure.
To assess data reliability split half reliability measures were in excess of 0.874,
while the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.93. The Cronbach
Alpha for all the Importance and Performance questions was close to 1 at 0.993. The
Split-Half scores were 0.883 for the first half and 0.939 for the second half. As
164 suggested by Ryan (1995), Hair et al. (1998) the usual “rule of thumb” of a minimum of
five respondents per item used in a scale meant the sample size was found to be
adequate. Such scores justified undertaking additional analysis. Additional analysis
involves descriptive statistics for the two sections of importance and performance
evaluation and factor analysis.

Descriptive statistics
Descriptive analysis of front office features’ scores for importance showed that
respondents consider “important” seven out of nine items listed, i.e. mean score is over
6 from the maximum possibility of 7:
(1) value for money of the hotel;
(2) receiving confirmation on reservation;
(3) making a reservation;
(4) first impression of the hotel;
(5) first contact with the hotel staff;
(6) helpful and friendly staff; and
(7) furnishings in the room.

Respondents consider three items from room service feature scores for importance in
the hotels in New Delhi, with mean scores of over 6 from the maximum possibility of 7:
(1) overall quality of food;
(2) value for money for room service; and
(3) overall selection of beverages.

In case of in-house café/restaurant in hotels in New Delhi, all eight importance features
scores were above 6 from the maximum possibility of 7:
(1) timely service;
(2) quality of service;
(3) quality of the restaurant food;
(4) appearance of the staff;
(5) value for money of the restaurant;
(6) dealing with complaints;
(7) product knowledge of staff; and
(8) ambience of the restaurant.

After recognising the importance scores and ranking given by the respondents staying
in hotels in New Delhi, the next step was to analyse the actual experience or
performance scores attributed by the respondents to different features of front office, Service quality in
room service and in-house café/restaurant. luxury hotels
Importance-performance analysis
Front office. The importance-performance technique has been widely used in tourism
academic literature. It is defined as a model of reasoned action by Sheppard et al.
(1988). Recently, Ryan and Cessford (2004) argue that, in the context of measuring 165
visitor satisfaction with sites of New Zealand Conservation Estate, there is indeed
much merit in asking a simple question such as “To what degree are you satisfied with
your visit?”, and response analysis of the importance-evaluation matrix
diagrammatically conveys important information to managers who can proceed to
act upon such research. Major parts of the survey in the current study include sets of
importance-performance type questions. Paired sample t-test was used to determine
the difference, if any, between importance-performance.
The front office showed statistically significant difference in all the nine areas
assessed when comparing importance and actual performance of service quality.
Prominent areas with a mean difference of over 1, indicating a larger disparity between
expectation and actual experience based on service performance, in ranking order
given by the responding guests are as follows (see Table I):
(1) The value for money of the hotel (mean difference 1.21).
(2) The furnishings in the room (mean difference 1.17).
(3) Receiving confirmation on reservation (mean difference 1.11).
(4) Ease of making a reservation (mean difference 1.01).

The above features are perhaps reasonably easy to deal with provided the hotel
management recognise the significance attributed to them by the respondents. The
difference existing between scores of importance and performance as illustrated in the
table identify managerial implications in those areas. If the hotels do not seek to meet
the current attributed importance by the guests can they ever be able to work towards
exceeding the importance expectation and achieving “customer delight” through their
performance?
Room service. The importance-performance analysis showed that in all room service
responses the importance is higher than the performance and the difference is
statistically significant (see Table I). Prominent areas with a mean difference of over 1,
indicating a larger disparity between expectation and actual experience based on
service performance, in ranking order given by the responding guests are as follows
(see Table I):
(1) Value for money for room service (mean difference 1.16).
(2) The overall quality of food (mean difference 1.13).
(3) The overall selection of beverages (mean difference 1.01).

Here again the scores illustrate difference between importance and performance which
has managerial implications in improving quality.
Café/restaurant (in-house). Comparison of importance and actual performance of
in-house café/restaurant reflects a similar experience showing statistically significant
difference in all eight areas assessed. All eight areas except one, showed mean
IJCHM
Importance Performance Mean
22,2 Mean SD Mean SD difference t-value

Front office
The value for money of the hotel 6.26 0.75 5.05 0.77 1.21 1.33 *
The furnishings in the room 6.04 0.64 4.87 1.06 1.17 1.32 *
166 Receiving confirmation on reservation 6.21 0.85 5.10 0.92 1.11 1.25 *
Ease of making a reservation 6.06 0.90 5.01 0.85 1.05 1.20 *
Helpful and friendly staff 6.06 0.82 5.11 0.96 0.95 1.06 *
First contact with the hotel staff 6.06 0.87 5.12 0.93 0.94 1.05 *
First impression of the hotel 6.06 0.88 5.14 0.94 0.92 1.04 *
Your first impressions of the hotel 5.98 0.94 5.08 0.92 0.90 1.02 *
The check-in and out of the hotel 5.96 0.87 5.07 0.90 0.88 1.00 *
Room service
Value for money for room service 6.07 0.85 4.92 0.91 1.16 1.30 *
The overall quality of food 6.24 0.70 5.11 0.91 1.13 1.25 *
The overall selection of beverages 6.05 0.89 5.04 1.04 1.01 1.13 *
Prompt response from order taker 5.97 0.76 5.11 0.78 0.86 0.96 *
Prompt room service if used 5.91 0.80 5.05 0.85 0.86 0.98 *
A variety of items on the menu 5.85 0.86 5.05 0.92 0.80 0.92 *
In-house café/restaurant
Quality of the restaurant food 6.32 0.74 5.00 0.95 1.32 1.45 *
The quality of service 6.35 0.67 5.07 0.92 1.28 1.40 *
Dealing with complaints 6.18 0.82 4.92 0.99 1.26 1.41 *
Timely service 6.49 0.68 5.24 0.94 1.25 1.37 *
The appearance of the staff 6.19 0.74 5.02 0.85 1.17 1.30 *
Value for money of the restaurant 6.19 0.74 5.06 1.01 1.13 1.27 *
Product knowledge of the staff 6.18 0.88 5.16 1.16 1.01 1.16 *
Ambience of the restaurant 6.01 0.73 5.20 0.86 0.82 0.94 *
Table I.
Importance-performance Note: * t-test two-tail probability ,0.01

difference of over 1, indicating a larger disparity between expectation and actual

experience based on service performance. The following is the ranking order (see
Table I):
(1) Quality of the restaurant food (mean difference 1.32).
(2) The quality of service (mean difference 1.28).
(3) Dealing with complaints (mean difference 1.26).
(4) Timely service (mean difference 1.25).
(5) The appearance of the staff (mean difference 1.17).
(6) Value for money of the restaurant (mean difference 1.13).
(7) Product knowledge of the staff (mean difference 1.01).

Table I illustrates that overall in almost all cases importance was rated more highly
than performance and the mean score difference was higher than “1” indicating
statistically significant disparity. It leaves a disturbing situation that participating
respondents” expectations were not met which usually impacts service quality
perceptions of customers.
 The survey participants were also asked to rank five features using a five-point Service quality in
scale, where 1 represented being not important and 5 represented very important in the
selection of a hotel. Each number was to be used only once. Table II lists the responses
luxury hotels
in descending order of mean. The purpose was to compare responses of Indian hotel
guests with findings of other studies by other researchers (Lockyer, 2002, 2003).
Cleanliness of the hotel (mean ¼ 4:85) is listed as the most important followed by value
for money (mean ¼ 4:75). Results indicate similarities when compared. 167
Factor analysis
Factor analysis was undertaken as it identify underlying dimensions within a list of
separate items was found suitable for the Importance data though here also couple of
items loaded heavily into more than one factor such as “prompt response from the
order taker” and “staff presentation and manners”. Exploratory factor analysis was
undertaken using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation. The KMO
was 0.84, which indicates suitability for analysis (Table III).
The five underlying factors which emerge from this analysis could be classified and
named as:
(1) Hotel ambience and staff courtesy – which accounted for impression of the
hotel, room conveniences and front office staff courtesy (variance 37.95 per
cent).
(2) Food and beverage product and service quality – this factor accounted for
quality and promptness of service (variance 9.83 per cent).
(3) Staff presentation and knowledge – this factor shows product knowledge,
complaint handling and presentation of staff (variance 6.24 per cent).
(4) Reservation services – this factor reflects on all reservation services of the hotel
including reservation for rooms and restaurant seating (variance 5.57 per cent).
(5) Overall value for money – it accounts for overall value impression of the hotel
facilities (variance 4.38 per cent).

The above factors have a strategic meaning in identifying the features considered
important by the customers. The features range from simple “courtesy” to “overall
value for money”. India despite its traditional hospitality culture stating Athithi
Devo Bhavha (Guest is God) runs the risk of developing an average and casual
service attitude. Such a practice in hotel industry could result in dissatisfaction of
customers and few or no repeat visits. The resulting factors from the analysis
reflect on the existing attitude and importance of guests staying in the local hotels,
thus providing some insights for current hotels managers to consider when
planning their services.

Feature Mean SD

Cleanliness of the hotel 4.85 0.848

Value for money 4.75 0.950
Location 4.58 1.199 Table II.
Friendliness of the staff 4.55 1.258 Ranking descriptive
Outside appearance of the hotel 4.48 1.304 statistics
IJCHM
Component
22,2 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Impression of the hotel 0.77 0.23 0.04 0.23 0.04

Helpful and friendly staff 0.76 0.17 0.24 0.17 0.04
First contact with the hotel staff 0.75 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.01
168 Your first impressions of the hotel 0.71 0.46 0.14 20.02 0.04
The check-in and out of the hotel 0.70 0.33 0.15 0.06 0.25
The furnishings in the room 0.60 0.00 2 0.02 0.21 0.39
A variety of items on the menu 0.18 0.80 0.10 0.15 0.05
The overall quality of food 0.20 0.68 0.12 0.03 0.36
The overall selection of beverages 0.34 0.67 0.07 0.25 20.18
Prompt room service if used 0.07 0.63 0.17 0.15 0.35
Quality of the restaurant food 0.31 0.61 0.22 0.00 0.06
Value for money of the restaurant 2 0.06 0.58 0.28 0.03 0.26
Prompt response from order taker 0.21 0.54 0.03 0.42 0.35
Product knowledge of the staff 0.19 0.05 0.80 0.27 20.01
The appearance of the staff 0.10 0.19 0.74 0.14 0.16
Dealing with complaints 0.24 0.34 0.72 20.10 0.13
Timely service 0.08 0.36 0.23 0.70 0.10
Receiving confirmation on reservation 0.44 2 0.09 0.11 0.61 0.23
Ambience of the restaurant 0.22 0.41 0.02 0.59 0.08
Making a reservation 0.50 2 0.20 0.15 0.51 0.07
The quality of service 0.31 0.33 0.42 0.44 0.14
The value for money of the hotel 0.25 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.79
Value for money for room service 0.00 0.36 0.19 0.16 0.53
Table III.
Factor analysis – rotated Note: Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
component matrix Normalisation. Rotation converged in eight iterations

Conclusion and discussion

A review of literature suggests that quality continues to be an issue to debate and
research. Hotels worldwide give importance to service quality as it reflects their
standard and creates a positive image of their product and service. Analysing the
response of two hotel managers on - Does quality impact on hotel performance? Claver
et al. (2006) find that quality management system can have a positive effect on such
areas as service quality, employee morale, reduction in working costs and waste, and
customer satisfaction, which in turn can have a strong effect on sales and competitive
position. Comparing the satisfaction among Asian and Western travellers with service
quality in Hong Kong hotels, Choi and Chu (2000) suggest that Asian travellers’ overall
satisfaction is primarily derived from the value factor, whereas their Western
counterparts are influenced by the room quality and consider service quality as the
most important factor.
Hotels in India also take a similar approach giving importance to service quality as
per discussions with different hotel managers during the survey administration. What
is the impression of the hotel guest in New Delhi? The current study attempts to seek
answer to this question. The responses and opinions of 264 participants about the
quality of products and services offered by the five star hotels in New Delhi, India are
representative of the population of similar hotel guests in New Delhi. The information
was accumulated to determine – general importance perceptions of customers who
stay in luxury hotels in New Delhi, India, their evaluation from the stay; any disparity Service quality in
between the specific and overall components of importance and the experience of their luxury hotels
actual stay. The analysis of the results of the descriptive statistics shows a perturbing
situation showing statistically significant differences between importance and
performance evaluations of the guests in every area within front office, room service
and in-house café/restaurant. There was not a single feature in any of the areas studied
where the evaluation of performance of the property exceeded the guest importance 169
perception. Though statistical significance was noted in importance-performance
analysis of all front office features, some areas had a mean difference of over 1 such as
– the value for money of the hotel; the furnishings in the room, receiving confirmation
on reservation and making a reservation (see Table I). The results suggest significant
efforts need to be undertaken from simple gestures of first contact on arrival to check
in and out efficiency to improve and reflect on service quality being offered to match, if
not exceed, the importance perception of the guests staying in local hotels.
The situation with respect of room service was no different; statistical significance
was noted in importance-performance difference analysis of all room service features
assessed in the study. Some areas had a mean difference of over 1 such as: value for
money for room service; overall quality of food and overall selection of beverages. The
in-house café/restaurant showed the worst results where statistical significance was
noted in all eight features of importance-performance analysis and all but one feature
i.e. ambience of the restaurant had a mean difference of less than 1. Some areas with a
mean difference of over 1 are: quality of food; quality of service; dealing with
complaints; appearance of staff, etc.
The importance performance analysis (IPA) matrix in Figure 1 summarises areas of
disparity and suggests managerial implications.

Implications for management

As discussed by Lockyer (2005a, b) the factors that impact on the repeat business in a
hotel are very complex. To gain an understanding of these factors a factor analysis was
undertaken which resulted in five underlying factors. The model in Figure 2 takes
these five factors and suggests their impact on the selection of repeat business by
guests. The model also introduces what is referred to as “Modifiers” which as
suggested could modify the factors and thus influences the repeat business. For
example the factors in selection are modified by gender by purpose etc. Five factors
based on the importance data are being called - hotel ambience and staff; food and
beverage product and service quality; staff presentation and knowledge; reservation
services and overall value for money. Overall the results indicate statistically
significant differences in importance and performance evaluation responses of the
hotel guests.
The study suggests to practitioners to note in ranking order features that are
considered important by hotel guests and their actual experience evaluation of those
features. An outcome of this finding points to the areas of disparity in service and
product quality of the hotels. Managerial implication is to recognise disparity and
undertake measures to improve with an approach of trying to exceed the expectations
of the guests to build customer loyalty and repeat business. Developing a commitment
to service quality is often a challenge faced by any service organisation, studying
customers’ attitude, seeking feedback and accumulating that information to analyse
IJCHM
22,2

170

Figure 1.
IPA matrix

and research helps to identify areas of disparity in importance performance evaluation,

thereby helping to develop appropriate actions and strategy to address such disparity.
Something this study has attempted to facilitate.

Implications for literature

In response to the question – what has this study to contribute to the literature? It is
observed that research in service quality of luxury hotels in India is sparse; the current
study has been the first attempt to gauge the service quality perceptions of guests
staying in luxury hotels in India. In that sense, the research has some value as it
provides material to other local and international researchers for a comparative study
 Service quality in
luxury hotels

171

Figure 2.
Factors impacting repeat
business

of service quality perceptions of luxury hotel guests with other such studies
undertaken in different parts of the world. Most luxury hotels worldwide can easily
compete with physical evidence and comforts, but, it is the service in the hotel that
makes the difference. It is service the Ritz-Carlton way that has earned excellence for
the hotel company by winning Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award twice. It
needs to be explored how hotels are working to achieve “customer delight”? This is
possible through continuous research and contribution to literature and this is
something this study has attempted to undertake.
The current study cannot claim to be wholly conclusive as it is limited to a small
sample size from only one metropolitan city of India and there could be subjectivity in
responses. Further study with a larger sample size accumulated from different
metropolitan cities of India is suggested.

References
ACNielson ORG_MARG (2008), Final Report, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India,
New Delhi.
Baker, D. and Crompton, J. (2000), “Quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27, pp. 785-804.
IJCHM Bates, K., Bates, H. and Johnston, R. (2003), “Linking service to profit: the business case for
service excellence”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
22,2 pp. 173-83.
Briggs, S., Sutherland, J. and Drummond, S. (2007), “Are hotels serving quality? An exploratory
study of service quality in the Scottish hotel sector”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 1006-19.
172 Choi, T.Y. and Chu, R. (2000), “Levels of satisfaction among Asian and Western travellers”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 116-32.
Claver, E., Tari, J.J. and Pereira, J. (2006), “Does quality impact on hotel performance?”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 350-8.
Getty, J.M. and Getty, R.L. (2003), “Lodging quality index: assessing customers’ perceptions of
quality delivery”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) (2008a), India at a Glance. An Initiative of the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi.
India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) (2008b), Tourism and Hospitality Industry. An Initiative
of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi.
Keating, M. and Harrington, D. (2003), “The challenges of implementing quality in the Irish hotel
industry”, Journal of European Industrial Training., Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 441-53.
Lockyer, T. (2000), “A New Zealand investigation into the factors influencing consumers’
selection of business hotel accommodation”, Australian Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 11-20.
Lockyer, T. (2002), “Business guest accommodation selection: the view from both sides”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 294-300.
Lockyer, T. (2003), “Hotel cleanliness: how do guests view it? Let’s get specific”, The International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 297-305.
Lockyer, T. (2005a), “Understanding the dynamics of the hotel purchase decision”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 481-92.
Lockyer, T. (2005b), “The perceived importance of price as one hotel selection dimension”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 529-37.
Mack, R., Mueller, R., Crotts, J. and Broderick, A. (2000), “Perceptions, corrections, and defections:
implications for service recovery in the restaurant industry”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 339-46.
Ministry of Tourism (2004), A Market Pulse Report, Department of Tourism, Government of
India, New Delhi.
Mohsin, A. (2003), “Service quality assessment of restaurants in Darwin, NT Australia”, Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Mohsin, A. and Ryan, C. (2005), “Service quality assessment of 4-star hotels in Darwin, Northern
Territory”, Australia Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 25-36.
O’Neil, M., Watson, H. and McKenna, M. (1994), “Service quality in the Northern Ireland
hospitality industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 36-40.
Pallet, W.J., Taylor, W.W. and Jayawardena, C. (2003), “People and quality: the case of Delta Service quality in
Hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 349-51. luxury hotels
Peterson, R.A. and Wilson, W.R. (1992), “Measuring customer satisfaction: fact or artifact?”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 61-71.
Ryan, C. (1995), Researching Tourist Satisfaction, Routledge, London.
Ryan, C. and Cessford, G. (2004), “Developing a visitor satisfaction monitoring methodology: 173
quality gaps, crowding and some results”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-50.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P.R. (1988), “The theory of reasoned action:
a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 325-43.
Tsai, M., Ryan, C. and Lockyer, T. (2002), “Culture and evaluation of service quality – a study of
the service quality gaps in a Taiwanese setting”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 8-18.
Tsang, N. and Qu, H. (2000), “Service quality in China’s hotel industry: a perspective from
tourists and hotel managers”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 316-26.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the
Firm, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Asad Mohsin can be contacted at: amohsin@mngt.waikato.ac.nz

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints